直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

Forms, Forms, Forms: Which USPTO forms to use?

January 05, 2016

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stephanie M. Sanders, Adriana L. Burgy

With the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), many USPTO forms were updated to comply with the new law.  This then begs the question as to which form to use and what date to use to figure out what forms to use.

PRE-AIA:  If an application was filed before September 16, 2012, when a number of procedural aspects of the AIA came into effect, applicants should continue to use the USPTO’s pre-AIA forms.  These forms are identified with the prefix PTO/SB.

POST-AIA:  If an application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, applicants should use the USPTO’s AIA forms.  These forms are identified with the prefix PTO/AIA.  

There, however, may be instances when an application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, but a pre-AIA form may still be appropriate because, for example, the particular form was not affected by the AIA.  That is, an applicant may still use form SB/08 to file an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.

What date is used for USPTO forms?  The actual day an application was filed is the date used to determine whether to use a pre-AIA or AIA form.  Unlike establishing whether the first-to-invent (FTI) or first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions apply based on whether the application has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the filing date of a priority application is not relevant when choosing the correct form.  For example, if a continuation application was filed on October 1, 2012, and claimed priority to a parent application filed October 1, 2010, the application would be examined under the first-to-invent, pre-AIA, legal regime (effective filing date before March 16, 2013), but would require the use of the new, AIA forms (actual filing date after September 16, 2012).

For a national stage application under § 371, the international filing date is used to determine whether a pre-AIA or AIA form is appropriate.  This is the case because a PCT application and a national stage application under § 371 are simply two phases of the same application; as such, the filing date of the national stage application is the international filing date.  For example, if a PCT application was filed on – and, thus, has an international filing date of – October 1, 2012, and the national stage application has a § 371(c) date of April 15, 2015, the applicant should use the AIA forms.

Both pre-AIA and AIA forms can be accessed from the USPTO’s Patents Forms webpage. Please see below for links to the pre-AIA and AIA sets of forms.

Patent Forms for Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012

Patent Forms for Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012

Tags

patent application, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

NAPABA Convention 2026

November 12-14, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Seminar

Annual Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Seminar

October 16, 2026

Alexandria

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Articles

California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions

October 7, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims

October 5, 2026

Articles

U.S. and European Automotive Updates: Installment 2

October 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Written Description Support, Vacates Mooted Non-Obviousness Finding

October 5, 2026

Articles

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, March 2026

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

September 29, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP